Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge orders West Linn family to pay fine for pool (Government out of control)
Portland Tribune ^ | October 1, 2012 | Lori Hall

Posted on 10/03/2012 6:57:07 AM PDT by hiho hiho

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last
To: Soul of the South

When I was a kid this was a free country.......


21 posted on 10/03/2012 7:45:31 AM PDT by Red Badger (Is it just me, or is Hillary! starting to look like Benjamin Franklin?.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho

this is like DC bureacracy.

One department approves designs—pay the fee

One department approves the permit —pay the fee

One department issues the fines — pay the fee

One department approves the inspections — pay the fee

AND then you have to repeat the process again because the inspector found out the others recieved a higher bribe so the whole process starts again.

oh and these are not taxes, they are user fees.


22 posted on 10/03/2012 7:51:20 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

The following is from— http://www.koinlocal6.com/news/local/story/OR-Wetland-Swimming-Pool/1YI4u9v-uUm4IxFd-yoRWQ.cspx

In a story first reported by KOIN, the Bundys built their backyard pool in 2009. The couple says the city and mayor gave them every indication the pool was OK to build, even though their backyard was next to wetlands. Three years later, the couple told KOIN they were getting retroactive fines from the city to the tune of $2 million, potentially making this the most-expensive pool in the Pacific Northwest. That’s when the Bundys took this issue to West Linn municipal court.

According to West Linn Assistant City Manager Kirsten Wyatt, “we generally say that you cannot build a pool within a water resource area.”

However, Wyatt clarified that the Bundys’ site is not in but rather near an area designated as wetlands. That being said, she contends that the Bundys “took the fill from the pool and dumped it into the wetland.”

“Generally, citizens need a ‘water resource area permit’ if building [near] a wetland or setback area,” Wyatt said. “They applied, after the pool was installed, for the permits; they did go through a series of steps related to permitting and process.”

In the end, she tells KOIN, “the pool did not meet the kind of criteria required for a pool to be in that area.”


23 posted on 10/03/2012 7:56:41 AM PDT by hiho hiho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho

24 posted on 10/03/2012 7:57:39 AM PDT by Wally_Kalbacken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

Over half of the state of Louisiana is classified as ‘wetlands’ severely restricting its use. I would imagine that most of the Portland, OR area is also classified as a ‘wetlands’. It’s hard to find a piece of property to build on when all of the property is restricted, thus making everyone a potential lawbreaker just for using his land. When everybody is a lawbreaker then the state can pick and choose which Romney supporter to prosecute.


25 posted on 10/03/2012 8:02:44 AM PDT by sportutegrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho

I suppose it’s unreasonable for the city to be asked to demonstrate actual damaged actually caused by this pool and patio.


26 posted on 10/03/2012 8:19:01 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Hopey changey Low emission unicorns and a crap sandwich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken

27 posted on 10/03/2012 8:34:06 AM PDT by lewislynn ( What does the global warming movement and the Fairtax movement have in commom? Misinformation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Then the king needs deposed.

Private property rights are inviolable under natural law.

To Hades with local statutes and environmentalism.


28 posted on 10/03/2012 8:40:03 AM PDT by Emperor Palpatine ("On the ascent of Olympus, what's a botched bar or two?" -Artur Schnabel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer

The EPA needs to go.

Thank you, you lying paranoid gold standard-killing RINO crook, Richard Nixon.

And the same to Ford for pardoning that SOB. Nixon should have spent the rest of his life in prison.


29 posted on 10/03/2012 8:40:11 AM PDT by Emperor Palpatine ("On the ascent of Olympus, what's a botched bar or two?" -Artur Schnabel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JesusIsLord

Local governments can go pound salt. What’s mine is mine to do with as I see fit.

Get rid of property taxes, too. Let the schools close. Free education isn’t a right, anyway


30 posted on 10/03/2012 8:40:16 AM PDT by Emperor Palpatine ("On the ascent of Olympus, what's a botched bar or two?" -Artur Schnabel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

You’re a part of the problem, then.

Remove all restrictions on private land use.


31 posted on 10/03/2012 8:40:32 AM PDT by Emperor Palpatine ("On the ascent of Olympus, what's a botched bar or two?" -Artur Schnabel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
Yes, how foolish to think if they bought property they could improve it to suit their needs. They simply bought the right to pay the taxes.

BTW, I didn't see any mention of the harm to the “wet land” or the public interest mentioned. Just “da rooz”.

Maybe they can file bankruptcy and leave the county a house that can't be sold or taxed.

32 posted on 10/03/2012 8:41:08 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho

There’s no such thing as private property rights, as this couple have found out the hard way. Once you move on to a parcel of land, you are at the mercy of the local governing body, and you have little or no recourse under the law (as specified by the governing body of course). You, and you alone are responsible for complying with the local ordinances, paying your tax bill, and following what the local governing body suggests is best for the municipality. This concludes your lesson in socialism 101. Have a nice day.


33 posted on 10/03/2012 9:02:20 AM PDT by factoryrat (We are the producers, the creators. Grow it, mine it, build it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho
when they believe a family of five’s backyard is more problematic than an individual
who takes lives in his own hands by getting behind the wheel drunk and getting caught doing so not once, but three times.

Laws are meant to entrap law abiding citizens. Real criminals don't have money silly.


So they went to trial but did they decide on a jury or is a judge only trial the only way to fight this?
Some courts will not allow jury trials because of the absurdity of many charges and laws,
and courts know this but make other excuses. And no sane taxpayer would allow this kind
of system. Accept maybe on the left coast.

Anybody have a map of how much they deem to be wetlands in Oregon? Mud puddle heaven.

34 posted on 10/03/2012 9:05:53 AM PDT by MaxMax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
Yea by god, if the gov says it must be, then it must be.
What a load..


There are laws and rules that are unjust and simply totalitarian over
people and private property. "Just because" isn't good enough.

35 posted on 10/03/2012 9:14:49 AM PDT by MaxMax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

from the article, permits aside.

This is an improper taking without compensation. It is not that the pool is on a wetland but that it is toooooo close to a wetland. so the goverment can set aside an area and then take via policy rather than law without compensation.


36 posted on 10/03/2012 9:19:08 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho

37 posted on 10/03/2012 9:28:55 AM PDT by fella ("As it was before Noah, so shall it be again,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk

ping


38 posted on 10/03/2012 9:35:50 AM PDT by Ouderkirk (Democrats...the party of Slavery, Segregation, Sodomy, and Sedition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

If it has a conservation easment than somebody has already been compensated.


39 posted on 10/03/2012 9:46:38 AM PDT by Lurkina.n.Learnin (Ignorance is bliss- I'm stoked)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Your private property is not yours. The king only lets you live on it for as long as it pleases him. Now you must pay for damaging the king's property.....

...and here I thought the Magna Carta was part of our common law...

The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail — its roof may shake — the wind may blow through it — the storm may enter — the rain may enter — but the King of England cannot enter — all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!
    Speech on the Excise Bill, House of Commons (March 1763).

40 posted on 10/03/2012 9:49:12 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson